Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2011-01-06]: A lot of commotion is observed around the case of a medical study that found a connection between vaccines and autism in children [1], [2]. Many people accuse the doctor who conducted the study as a fraud, while the latter's defendants talk about an honourable man who is being wrongly accused by the pharmaceutical companies. The question of the vaccines' side effects is a difficult one: on the one side it is difficult for someone to believe that all vaccines do not do any good and that doctors who defend them do not know what they are talking about, but on the other hand it is also very hard to believe that a child in the US must do 36 vaccines until the age of 5 or that no vaccine has serious side effects... The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle and scientists must at last become responsible and inform people in a proper manner instead of playing with our lifes in order to gain money.
All data in favor and against a vaccine must come into light so that we are able to decide on our own for our selfs. Vaccine data can many times be distorted in one way or the other and none of us has forgotten how pharmaceutical companies convinced many countries to buy useless H1N1 vaccines recently, that very few citizens actually performed... The founder of the Theory of Evolution - Alfred Russel Wallace (see http://knol.google.com/k/russel-wallace-and-evolution-theory#) - was against the vaccines and with studies he conducted (see VACCINATION A DELUSION, Alfred Russel Wallace LL.D. DUBL., D.C.L. OXON., F.R.S., London, 1898) had shown that the extermination of specific deseases during his century was the result of the better hygiene rules followed and not of the vaccines. Today many vaccines have a success percentage that is not only far off the 100% but even close to less than 50%. If you have a vaccine that has a success rate of 50%, is that a good vaccine or not? If someone gets sick even though he/she was vaccinated, can you really say that the vaccine worked? Can you really be sure that the fact that a percentage of the people vaccinated did not get sick is due to the vaccine? The pharmaceutical companies seem to rule the ground of medical research and the H1N1 fiasco showed that they can even rule the world.... If Wallace was right or wrong I cannot say for sure if I do not see all the facts. However real life finally "decided" on the credibility of his studies in a very unscientific way: he was defamed, was actually expelled from the scientific community of his time and died in poverty - despite the fact that he was one of the most valued researchers of his time. History repeats itself with very scarry similar patterns?
 | |||
| London death rates in the infamous study "Vaccination a Delusion" by Wallace (see below) showing that the reduction of deaths for specific diseases that was first attributed to vaccines, was simply due to better general health conditions |
All data in favor and against a vaccine must come into light so that we are able to decide on our own for our selfs. Vaccine data can many times be distorted in one way or the other and none of us has forgotten how pharmaceutical companies convinced many countries to buy useless H1N1 vaccines recently, that very few citizens actually performed... The founder of the Theory of Evolution - Alfred Russel Wallace (see http://knol.google.com/k/russel-wallace-and-evolution-theory#) - was against the vaccines and with studies he conducted (see VACCINATION A DELUSION, Alfred Russel Wallace LL.D. DUBL., D.C.L. OXON., F.R.S., London, 1898) had shown that the extermination of specific deseases during his century was the result of the better hygiene rules followed and not of the vaccines. Today many vaccines have a success percentage that is not only far off the 100% but even close to less than 50%. If you have a vaccine that has a success rate of 50%, is that a good vaccine or not? If someone gets sick even though he/she was vaccinated, can you really say that the vaccine worked? Can you really be sure that the fact that a percentage of the people vaccinated did not get sick is due to the vaccine? The pharmaceutical companies seem to rule the ground of medical research and the H1N1 fiasco showed that they can even rule the world.... If Wallace was right or wrong I cannot say for sure if I do not see all the facts. However real life finally "decided" on the credibility of his studies in a very unscientific way: he was defamed, was actually expelled from the scientific community of his time and died in poverty - despite the fact that he was one of the most valued researchers of his time. History repeats itself with very scarry similar patterns?
Usefull resources where someone can start his/her investigation:
- Google search for vaccines effectiveness exaggerated [example]
- Google search for vaccines effectiveness exaggerated [example 2]
- http://www.whale.to/
m/incao.html - http://www.whale.to/
m/incao.html - Is HPV Vaccine Benefit Exaggerated?, MedicineNet.com
- Review: pneumococcal vaccination does not prevent pneumonia, bacteraemia, bronchitis, or mortality, Evid Based Nurs 2009;12:74 doi:10.1136/ebn.12.3
.74. - http://www.naturalne
ws.com/022611.html - http://ezinearticles
.com/?The-Vaccinatio n-Conspiracy&id=2471 228
(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective...
